|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
But they should have to patent the concrete thing (their custom hardware, for
example). Not the abstract math part.
By the way, I really think the vast majority of software patents ARE like
RE38104 (covering solely algorithms, or just algorithms being used in a
particular domain). I'm not a lawyer, but nearly every software I've had the
misfortune to have to read, seemed to lack any real patentable subject matter
(physical, tangible, concrete).
That's what makes them so dangerous -- even people trying to do a completely
different thing to what the patent "inventor" was supposedly trying to
do with it, are vulnerable to being sued, and the courts can't work out quickly
and efficiently that the lawsuit is bogus, so it ends up costing the victim
hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars (unless they just cave and pay
an extortion/settlement fee, and/or go out of business).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
If you do a random sample of software patents, you'll find they're practically
all like the Oracle patents, not like the Diehr patents.
Try it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
